lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 23 Feb 2017 13:44:06 +0530
From:   Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:     Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
        minchan@...nel.org, aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        bsingharora@...il.com, srikar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
        haren@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, dave.hansen@...el.com,
        dan.j.williams@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/4] Define coherent device memory node

On 02/22/2017 01:44 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 06:39:17PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 02/17/2017 07:02 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>> On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 05:11:57PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>> On 02/15/2017 11:50 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 05:37:22PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>> * The placement of the memory on the buffer can happen on system memory
>>>>   when the CPU faults while accessing it. But a driver can manage the
>>>>   migration between system RAM and CDM memory once the buffer is being
>>>>   used from CPU and the device interchangeably.
>>>
>>> While I'm not familiar with the details because I'm not generally involved
>>> in hardware enablement, why was HMM not suitable? I know HMM had it's own
>>> problems with merging but as it also managed migrations between RAM and
>>> device memory, how did it not meet your requirements? If there were parts
>>> of HMM missing, why was that not finished?
>>
>>
>> These are the reasons which prohibit the use of HMM for coherent
>> addressable device memory purpose.
>>
>> (1) IIUC HMM currently supports only a subset of anon mapping in the
>> user space. It does not support shared anon mapping or any sort of file
>> mapping for that matter. We need support for all mapping in the user space
>> for the CPU/device compute to be effective and transparent. As HMM depends
>> on ZONE DEVICE for device memory representation, there are some unique
>> challenges in making it work for file mapping (and page cache) during
>> migrations between system RAM and device memory.
> 
> I need to debunk that. HMM does not support file back page (or share memory)
> for a single reason: CPU can not access HMM memory. If the device memory is
> accessible from CPU in cache coherent fashion then adding support for file
> back page is easy. There is only an handfull of place in the filesystem that

This needs to be done in all file systems possible which supports file
mapping in the user space and page caches ?

> assume page are on the lru and all that is needed is allowing file back page
> to not be on the lru. Extra thing would be to forbid GUP but that is easy.

If its not on LRU how we are going to manage the reclaim and write back
into the disk for the dirty pages ? In which order ? Then a brand new
infrastructure needs to be created for that purpose ? Why GUP access
needs to be blocked for these device pages ?

> 
> 
>>
>> (2) ZONE_DEVICE has been modified to support un-addressable memory apart
>> from addressable persistent memory which is not movable. It still would
>> have to support coherent device memory which will be movable.
> 
> Again this isn't how it is implemented. I splitted the un-addressable part
> from the move-able property. So you can implement addressable and moveable
> memory using HMM modification to ZONE_DEVICE.

Need to check this again but yes its not a very big issue.

> 
>>
>> (3) Application cannot directly allocate into device memory from user
>> space using existing memory related system calls like mmap() and mbind()
>> as the device memory hides away in ZONE_DEVICE.
> 
> That's true but this is deliberate choice. From the begining my choice
> have been guided by the principle that i do not want to add or modify
> existing syscall because we do not have real world experience with this.

With the current proposal for CDM, memory system calls just work
on CDM without requiring any changes.

> 
> Once HMM is use with real world workload by people other than me or
> NVidia and we get feedback on what people writting application leveraging
> this would like to do. Then we might start thinking about mbind() or other
> API to expose more policy control to application.

I am not really sure how much of effort would be required to make
ZONE_DEVICE pages to be accessible from user space with existing
memory system calls. NUMA representation just makes it work without
any further changes. But I got your point.

> 
> For time being all policy and migration decision are done by the driver
> that collect hint and statistic from the userspace driver of the GPU.
> So this is all device specific and it use existing driver mechanism.

CDM framework also has the exact same expectations from the driver. But
it gives user space more control and visibility regarding whats happening
with the memory buffer.

> 
>>
>> Apart from that, CDM framework provides a different approach to device
>> memory representation which does not require special device memory kind
>> of handling and associated call backs as implemented by HMM. It provides
>> NUMA node based visibility to the user space which can be extended to
>> support new features.
> 
> True we diverge there. I am not convince that NUMA is the right direction.

Yeah true, we diverge here :)

> NUMA was design for CPU and CDM or device memory is more at a sub-level
> than NUMA. Each device is attach to a given CPU node itself part of the
> NUMA hierarchy. So to me CDM is more about having a hierarchy of memory
> at node level and thus should not be implemented in NUMA. Something new

Currently NUMA does not support any memory hierarchy at node level.

> is needed. Not only for device memory but for thing like stack memory
> that won't use as last level cache as it has been done in existing Intel
> CPU. I believe we will have deeper hierarchy of memory, from fast high
> bandwidth stack memory (on top of CPU/GPU die) to the regular memory as
> we know it and also device memory.

I agree but in absence of the infrastructure NUMA seems to be a suitable
fallback for now.
 
>  
> 
>>> I know HMM had a history of problems getting merged but part of that was a
>>> chicken and egg problem where it was a lot of infrastructure to maintain
>>> with no in-kernel users. If CDM is a potential user then CDM could be
>>
>> CDM is not a user there, HMM needs to change (with above challenges) to
>> accommodate coherent device memory which it does not support at this
>> moment.
> 
> There is no need to change anything with current HMM to support CDM. What
> you would want is to add file back page which would require to allow non
> lru page (this lru assumption of file back page exist only in couple place
> and i don't remember thinking it would be a challenge to change that).

I am afraid this statement over simplifies the challenge in hand. May be
we need to start looking into actual details to figure out how much of
changes are really required for this enablement.

> 
> 
>>> built on top and ask for a merge of both the core infrastructure required
>>> and the drivers at the same time.
>>
>> I am afraid the drivers would be HW vendor specific.
>>
>>>
>>> It's not an easy path but the difficulties there do not justify special
>>> casing CDM in the core allocator.
>>
>> Hmm. Even if HMM supports all sorts of mappings in user space and related
>> migrations, we still will not have direct allocations from user space with
>> mmap() and mbind() system calls.
> 
> I am not sure we want to have this kind of direct allocation from day one.
> I would rather have the whole thing fire tested with real application and
> real user through device driver. Then wait to see if common usage pattern
> warrant to create a generic API to direct new memory allocation to device
> memory.

But we should not also over look this aspect and go in a direction
where it can be difficult to implement at later point in time. I am
not saying its going to be difficult but its something we have to
find out.


> 
>  
>>>>   As you have mentioned
>>>>   driver will have more information about where which part of the buffer
>>>>   should be placed at any point of time and it can make it happen with
>>>>   migration. So both allocation and placement are decided by the driver
>>>>   during runtime. CDM provides the framework for this can kind device
>>>>   assisted compute and driver managed memory placements.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which sounds like what HMM needed and the problems of co-ordinating whether
>>> data within a VMA is located on system RAM or device memory and what that
>>> means is not addressed by the series.
>>
>> Did not get that. What is not addressed by this series ? How is the
>> requirements of HMM and CDM framework are different ?
> 
> The VMA flag of CDM is really really bad from my point of view. I do
> understand and agree that you want to block auto-numa and ksm or any-
> thing similar from happening to CDM memory but this is a property of
> the memory that back some address in a given VMA. It is not a property
> of a VMA region. Given that auto-numa and KSM work from VMA down to
> memory i understand why one would want to block it there but it is
> wrong.

Okay. We have already discussed these and the current proposed patch
series does not have these changes. I had decided to split the previous
series and posted only the isolation bits of it. We can debate about
the VMA/page aspect of the solution but after we reach an agreement
on the isolation parts.

> 
> I already said that a common pattern will be fragmented VMA ie a VMA
> in which you have some address back by device memory and other back
> by regular memory (and no you do not want to split VMA). So to me it
> is clear you need to block KSM or auto-numa at page level ie by using
> memory type property from node to which the page belong for instance.
> 
> Droping the CDM flag would simplify your whole patchset.

Okay, got your point.

> 
>  
>>>
>>> Even if HMM is unsuitable, it should be clearly explained why
>>
>> I just did explain in the previous paragraphs above.
>>
>>>
>>>> * If any application is not using CDM memory for along time placed on
>>>>   its buffer and another application is forced to fallback on system
>>>>   RAM when it really wanted is CDM, the driver can detect these kind
>>>>   of situations through memory access patterns on the device HW and
>>>>   take necessary migration decisions.
>>>>
>>>> I hope this explains the rationale of the framework. In fact these
>>>> four patches give logically complete CPU/Device operating framework.
>>>> Other parts of the bigger picture are VMA management, KSM, Auto NUMA
>>>> etc which are improvements on top of this basic framework.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Automatic NUMA balancing is a particular oddity as that is about
>>> CPU->RAM locality and not RAM->device considerations.
>>
>> Right. But when there are migrations happening between system RAM and
>> device memory. Auto NUMA with its CPU fault information can migrate
>> between system RAM nodes which might not be necessary and can lead to
>> conflict or overhead. Hence Auto NUMA needs to be switched off at times
>> for the VMAs of concern but its not addressed in the patch series. As
>> mentioned before, it will be in the follow up work as improvements on
>> this series.
> 
> I do not think auto-numa need to be switch of for the whole VMA but only
> block it for device memory. Because auto-numa can't gather device memory
> usage statistics.

Right.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists